Rule 4.2 – Adjournment of trial dates
The respondents failed on motions to convert the applicant's application to an action and consolidate it with their application. Justices hearing those motions cited the importance of having the applicant's application dealt with expeditiously. The matter was set to be heard over five days in March, 2012. Discoveries took slightly longer than anticipated and concluded in February, 2012. The respondents moved for an adjournment to allow them time to go through the discovery transcripts. Their lawyer said leaving the dates as-is wouldn't give him sufficient time to prepare. The applicant strongly opposed the adjournment request. Held, a short adjournment granted on the conditions that: the respondents pay half the costs incurred to expedite the transcripts and the matter be set for tentative dates in April or May, 2012, with alternate dates set within the next six months. Each party faces the risk of potential prejudice. This isn't a case where discoveries took place a long time ago. The evidence should be fresh in everyone's mind. An increase in the volume of the transcripts alone wouldn't justify an adjournment, but the court must be mindful of the fact the respondent's lawyer says he doesn't have time to properly prepare for the March dates.